Half of Metroburg's operating budget comes from a payroll tax of 2 per

Sorry im not sure why would i be assuming that? I mean it would depend on the number of people no? If possible could you pls express your argument by stating the formula in words for the logic you are implying avigutman

You shouldn't assume that, but if you like answer choice (D) then you are assuming that. Try this thought experiment, Elite097:
Employees at the financial services company earn, on average, 10 times as much as the other employees in Metroburg.
If that were true, would you still like answer choice (D)?
I thought TomWalker did a great job explaining this a couple of posts above yours, Elite097. Here's his explanation, for your convenience:

GMATNinja
mikemcgarry
avigutman
KarishmaB

Please help with this query


(E) says that the company's relocation will tend to increase the proportion of public-sector jobs in Metroburg, unless that same relocation also results in a contraction of the public-sector payroll.

We know that the company is "one of Metroburg's largest private-sector employers." It logically follows that if one of Metroburg's largest private-sector employers relocates all of its employees to a location outside of Metroburg, then the result will tend to be a lower proportion of private-sector jobs (and a higher proportion of public-sector jobs) in Metroburg)...

...unless that same move results in a contraction of the public-sector payroll.

This second part of choice (E) simply says that we won't see a tendency towards increase in the proportion of public-sector jobs if there's an accompanying contraction of public-sector payroll. In other words, a contraction may reduce the tendency of an increase. We can't tell from the passage whether a contraction in public-sector payroll is likely to happen or how it could happen, but we don't need to know that to accept the logic of this statement.

This is why choice (E) can be more properly be concluded than any other choice available.

I hope that helps!


Hi GMATNinja

I have a query regarding the interpretation of the conditional logic of ‘unless’

A unless B

Implies if not B then A or the contrapositive if not A then B

Your explanation for ‘ The company's relocation will tend to increase the proportion of jobs in Metroburg that are in the public sector, unless it results in a contraction of the public-sector payroll’ is ‘we won't see a tendency towards increase in the proportion of public-sector jobs if there's an accompanying contraction of public-sector payroll’

So for A unless B you are implying that if B then not A ….I believe that’s incorrect.

Would love some clarity on this

Also it would be great if you could let me know why interpreting ‘if B then not A’ from ‘A unless B’ is not logically correct

"A unless B" is equivalent to "If not B, then A"

I will complete my project on time unless I fall sick.
is equivalent to
If I do not fall sick, I will complete my project on time.

If I fall sick, what will happen, I cannot say.

The company's relocation will tend to increase the proportion of jobs in Metroburg that are in the public sector, unless it results in a contraction of the public-sector payroll.

means

If it does not result in a contraction of the public-sector payroll, the company's relocation will tend to increase the proportion of jobs in Metroburg that are in the public sector.

This is true. The move will reduce the number of private sector employees. If the move does not reduce the number of public sector employees, then the move will lead to an increase in the proportion of jobs in public sector.

"A unless B" is equivalent to "If not B, then A"

I will complete my project on time unless I fall sick.
is equivalent to
If I do not fall sick, I will complete my project on time.

If I fall sick, what will happen, I cannot say.

The company's relocation will tend to increase the proportion of jobs in Metroburg that are in the public sector, unless it results in a contraction of the public-sector payroll.

means

If it does not result in a contraction of the public-sector payroll, the company's relocation will tend to increase the proportion of jobs in Metroburg that are in the public sector.

This is true. The move will reduce the number of private sector employees. If the move does not reduce the number of public sector employees, then the move will lead to an increase in the proportion of jobs in public sector.[/quote]


KarishmaB thank you for responding to my query.

I understand that A unless B implies if not B then A

But I just want to know what’s wrong in the interpretation of ‘If B then not A’ from ‘A unless B’ ?

‘I will complete my project on time unless I fall sick’ can also be understood as the following

I will complete my project on time…but what will prevent me from doing so is when I fall sick

I also saw several grammar videos on the usage of unless with the above implication.

It's easiest to look at the meaning of this particular answer choice instead of trying to match the word "unless" to a rigid logical definition.

Here, we're looking for something that can be most properly concluded. The first bit of (E) gives us a potential conclusion: "The company's relocation will tend to increase the proportion of jobs in Metroburg that are in the public sector."

But wait, what if a whole bunch of public sector jobs go away? Then we'd run into the exact same issue as we did on (B).

To avoid this issue, the author adds in a qualification, or perhaps a condition: "unless that same move results in a contraction of the public-sector payroll."

Basically, the author is saying "IF the public sector doesn't get contracted, THEN we can conclude that the proportion of public sector jobs will increase."

If you want a more logic-y way of looking at it, "unless" in this case actually means "if this second thing doesn't happen (the public sector contraction), then we can likely conclude that the first thing will happen." Or, to put it into your framework, "If not B, then most likely A." But again, I really wouldn't recommend trying to memorize stuff like this -- most of the time it just complicates matters. Instead, think through each answer choice independently to get at what the author is really trying to say.

I hope that helps!

Take the simple example:

Peter: I will complete my project on time unless I fall sick.

What is Peter telling us? That he is on his way to completing the project on time and he will. The only exception is the case in which he falls sick.
So what we can say for sure is that if he doesn't fall sick, he will complete his project on time (certainty).
But if he falls sick, he MAY not complete it on time. I can't say that he will definitely NOT complete it on time if he falls sick. All I can say is that the certainty of completing it on time goes for a toss if he falls sick.

I am still unconvinced on why C is wrong? Can anyone help?

The question says what can be 'most properly' concluded - and the only thing inferable seems to be that the relocation of the company outside the state will help it pay less tax (unless the movement is in the state where payroll taxes are higher)

E just seems to be a leap of faith to me, and I could correctly disregard A/D based on the proportionality argument.

HarvardCallingMe

Yeah, that "unless" is extremely important. What if I said that I am moving from the US, where I must pay taxes, to France? Does that tell you anything at all about my tax situation? Of course not! Similarly, in a math context, if I told you that X is even, and Y is not a multiple of X, would you conclude that Y is odd? No, you'd have no idea. It's important to accept that C is an absolute zero. There is literally no support for it at all, and such an answer could never be considered correct on an inference question.

As for E, it covers the "leap of faith" part with the proviso about changes in public sector jobs, so this answer is actually provable. If even a single private-sector job is eliminated, with no change in public-sector jobs, then the % of public jobs has gone up. So if a whole company takes all its private jobs out of the city, and no other big change happens as a result, then that move has had the effect of increasing the % of public jobs. If some other, unrelated event pulls the % back down, that doesn't matter. The move we're discussing has still exerted an upward pressure on that %. This really must be true.

Wonderful question. I solved it using my OG material and was looking for a good discussion.
I did it wrong the first time (D). The second time around, I realized 1% people are being incorrectly compared to 1% (reduction in) revenue in option (A) and (D). (C) is simply bad assumption. How do we know that the payroll tax or any other taxes are not higher in the new location? Can't assume anything here. (B) I didn't find it relevant at all. Even if it increases unemployment rate, how is that relevant? Plus this is inference question, so the fact should be supported by the argument and it is not.

KarishmaB GMATNinjaTwo GMATNinja - Can you please evaluate my answer? Thank you!

I am not sure about your logic for eliminating option (B). It's an inference question - is it something you can deduce from the argument. It is certainly relevant and would be my second choice after option (E) as the inference. At face value, it does seem to be correct but when we think a little harder, we realise that it is not. When a company relocates to another city with all its employees, it doesn't mean that it did not create any unemployment in the previous city by leaving. The local food providers who depended on the company's employees, the cleaners who cleaned the company's premises, the security guards who were likely brought in from an agency etc all would be out of job at least temporarily. A company this size (1% of the workforce) would have an entire ecosystem supporting it and that would all fall flat with the company leaving.

KarishmaB: Thanks for the explanation. Yes, now I see better B why is incorrect but not irrelevant. In my humble opinion, B could have been an inference answer choice (or better answer) if the answer was rephrased as below. I had E selected using the method of elimination. It is a tough question. At this point, I am wondering how I am supposed to think through this amount of details within 2 minutes. Any suggestion?

"The company's relocation will have a negative effect on the city's tax revenue. The company's departure may lead to increase in the unemployment rate among city residents."

Options that try to hedge make poor conclusions - not incorrect, but poor.

If, after looking at some data, I conclude that it may rain tomorrow, what am I saying really? What value did I add? I am not saying anything concrete. Even if there were no data input, it is always true that it may rain tomorrow. What value did I add?
So your re-worded option would not be incorrect, but rather sub-optimal.

You are supposed to think through this amount of detail by hopefully stealing some extra time from sentence correction questions!

Very good question!

It’s verbal reasoning, not verbal test!

Reasoning points:
The company employes 1% of the workforce, but how do we know it pays 1% of the overall payroll taxes?
Maybe this company is a very generous company and pays double the average salary of employees in the city, maybe the exact opposite!
E is accurate but reasoning every single choice until we reach to E makes us bored and increases our tendency to eliminate it, also it’s more complex and contains ratio information! Boooringgg.
But it’s actually the only reasonable choice!

­How come you are sure that it will increase public sector jobs if one private company moves out . I believe since a company is moving out there is definitely reduction in workforce and can affect tax revenue but it wont lead to an increased departure of unemployment rate

­Take another look at the exact wording of (E):


(E) doesn't say that there will be an "increase in public sector jobs," as you've written. It instead says that the proportion of jobs that are in the public sector will increase. These two things are very different!

The proportion of public-sector jobs means the number of those jobs compared to the overall number of jobs (public and private). We know that some private sector jobs are going away -- so even if the number of public sector jobs remains exactly the same, those jobs will now be a bigger piece of the overall job market. In other words, the proportion will increase. ­

As for (B), you just can't make the assumption that the unemployment rate won't increase, for exactly the reason we mentioned above: the relocation of some workers can affect other workers. When the huge company leaves, those workers may not continue to visit coffee shops, restaurants, etc. within the town. This could lead to increased unemployment for baristas, waiters, and others. ­So, we can't "properly conclude" the information in (B).

I hope that helps!­